Even John and Paul disagree with the God of the OT

Originally posted by MamaJ
There are passages in the Bible whereas Jesus speaks of reincarnation. Google it. There are MANY!

I'm not going to google anything -- you say that he did, so what are these statements that have convinced you?

We live in a time where History can be read with a click... at our finger tips.

We also live in a time when non-critical thinkers can be duped into believing almost anything, because a superficial argument can be made for all
positions, and one would be hard pressed to NOT find some kook on the Internet posting "proof" for the gullible to chance upon.

I also believe its possible that the church hid certain things from his teachings, or even removed some parts of the text that didn't agree
with what they wanted taught...

My friend, that above is precisely the charge against Marcion and the Gnostics, that they made gospels that aligned with their doctrines and
expurgated the Biblical books in areas that refuted their doctrines. There are half chapters missing from their 3 Alexandrian manuscripts that two
Christians quote in their commentaries over 100 years earlier.

I also believe its possible that the church hid certain things from his teachings, or even removed some parts of the text that didn't agree
with what they wanted taught...

My friend, that above is precisely the charge against Marcion and the Gnostics, that they made gospels that aligned with their doctrines and
expurgated the Biblical books in areas that refuted their doctrines. There are half chapters missing from their 3 Alexandrian manuscripts that two
Christians quote in their commentaries over 100 years earlier.

I know what he was accused of... unfortunatly no one will ever know if it is true or not... because there is none of his work in existence as far as
we know.

Though a church that will destroy the beliefs of others in an attempt to hide their writing is always suspicious...

A church that will go so far as to murder others to hide their beliefs is always suspicious...

And a church that keeps a library of ancient writing from the public... likely from the time of Jesus, and likely revealing a lot of information they
do not want their followers to learn... is definatly suspicious

Originally posted by Akragon
And a church that keeps a library of ancient writing from the public... likely from the time of Jesus, and likely revealing a lot of information they
do not want their followers to learn... is definatly suspicious

Well, I'm not sure that one can fault the church for wanting to suppress those that they deemed as heretics -- just as we suppress those who teach
incorrectly today. (Don't believe me? Get a job in a public school and try teaching creationism

)

At any rate, both Marcion and Valentinus (and most of the other early heretics) did not face a brutal, oppressive church that could wield its power to
crush all opposition -- the orthodox church in that time wasn't in any condition to be dictating to others, as it was facing significant oppression
of its own, from both the Jewish end, and the Roman one. Odds are fairly good that Marcion's movement ran out of steam when he did.

One thing that I found interesting about rebuilding lost texts from criticisms (which is how we can see, today, what Marcion thought back in 125AD) --
for a long time, almost everything that we knew about the Gnostic Christians was garnered in that fashion. Beliefs that they held were assumed, based
on how Christian writers refuted them.

But by the time that we got to the 19th and 20th Centuries, it was assumed that these refutations were invalid, likely radically overstated the
Gnostic views, and the "reconstructed theology" was almost certainly wrong.

Well, then along comes Nag Hammadi, and with one exception, those refutations were pretty much spot on -- they hadn't distorted or misrepresented
things at all. The one exception was the claim that the Gnostic Christians, who disdained the material form, were sexually licentious and immoral,
though Nag Hammadi shows that, while a very few of them did view sex in that manner, for the most part, they were ascetics -- they avoided sexual
activity (believing, I suppose, that procreation was just prolonging the torture of some other castaway.)

Their works are in existence, Gnostic gospels with pseudographical authorship and 3 complete manuscripts, the TV, TS, and TA. They have quite a bit
removed or altered from the TR (Majority Text), specifically the last 12 verses of Mark because they rejected resurrection. You also have the
writings of very prominent early church leaders denouncing them.

Their works are in existence, Gnostic gospels with pseudographical authorship and 3 complete manuscripts, the TV, TS, and TA. They have quite a bit
removed or altered from the TR (Majority Text), specifically the last 12 verses of Mark because they rejected resurrection. You also have the
writings of very prominent early church leaders denouncing them.

Unfortunalty the only information we have are "refutations" of his work... None of his actual writing exists...

As far as i know they do not disbelieve in ressurection... IF that was the case why would they even mention its existence in their texts... for
example

The Gospel of Bartholomew

1 After the resurrection from the dead of our Lord Jesus Christ, Bartholomew came unto the Lord and questioned him, saying: Lord, reveal unto
me the mysteries of the heavens.

Ands its mentioned in many more... They do believe in the resurrection, but they also believe in reincarnation at the same time... depending on the
life of that soul. Gnostic writing is huge on the "you get what you deserve" ideal...

Also keep in mind like Christianity, gnostic beliefs are not unified in their theology either...

Their works are in existence, Gnostic gospels with pseudographical authorship and 3 complete manuscripts, the TV, TS, and TA. They have quite a bit
removed or altered from the TR (Majority Text), specifically the last 12 verses of Mark because they rejected resurrection. You also have the
writings of very prominent early church leaders denouncing them.

Unfortunalty the only information we have are "refutations" of his work... None of his actual writing exists...

Sorry, I'm getting confused here -- are you talking about Marcion? Or the Gnostic Christians? They were two separate things -- and though they had
some beliefs in common, particularly as regards the Jewish issue, Marcion would not have agreed with much that Valentinus and later Gnostic Christians
came up with.

Ands its mentioned in many more... They do believe in the resurrection, but they also believe in reincarnation at the same time... depending
on the life of that soul. Gnostic writing is huge on the "you get what you deserve" ideal...

Actually, they didn't "believe" in resurrection, so much as they had to explain it. As far as we can tell, the Gnostics used a number of the NT
Gospels in their churches, so they had this "resurrection" thing in the text that they needed to deal with. If the material world was so awful,
once the Bringer of Gnosis was free of it, why would he willingly be brought back into bodily form?

Well, the answer was that he was never in bodily form in the first place, so Christ's "resurrection", had nothing to do with the restoration of the
spirit in the body (adopting a form of Docetism.)

Yes, the Gnostic Christians believed in reincarnation, through not in the "karmic" sense that I think you're alluding to -- the majority belief was
that there were three possible outcomes of death -- liberation, reincarnation, or oblivion. Gnostics who had obtained the required knowledge were
liberated, Gnostics who had not, and normal, "run of the mill" Christians, would reincarnate over and over until they did obtain it, and the
unwashed masses were destined for obliteration.

Sorry, I'm getting confused here -- are you talking about Marcion? Or the Gnostic Christians? They were two separate things -- and though they
had some beliefs in common, particularly as regards the Jewish issue, Marcion would not have agreed with much that Valentinus and later Gnostic
Christians came up with.

In that quote i was talking about Marcion... Lots of his ideas were used in Gnostic writing apparently, though they were from reconstructions from
refutations from early "christian" writers... not from his actual writing.

Actually, they didn't "believe" in resurrection, so much as they had to explain it.

Why would they mention its existence if they didn't believe in it? You say Christians don't believe in reincarnation and its not mentioned in their
texts... Why would gnostic writers even bother to mention something they don't believe in?

As far as we can tell, the Gnostics used a number of the NT Gospels in their churches, so they had this "resurrection" thing in the text that
they needed to deal with.

Well, that particular Gnostic writer rejected the main books of the NT as you stated previously... which deal with the resurrection in detail...

Perhaps you might cite some passages that reject the resurrection?

I don't recall any specific rejection of the idea of resurrection, and i've read pretty much all of the gnostic texts a number of times... Valentinus
didn't reject it... The gospel of Mary talks about discussions with Jesus After his resurrection as well... and i could go on and on...

If the material world was so awful, once the Bringer of Gnosis was free of it, why would he willingly be brought back into bodily
form?

Perhaps that question is for Lazarus... Not me

Well, the answer was that he was never in bodily form in the first place, so Christ's "resurrection", had nothing to do with the restoration of
the spirit in the body

i've always found that an interesting belief... That Jesus was actually a spirit not human and didn't leave footprints etc...

Yes, the Gnostic Christians believed in reincarnation, through not in the "karmic" sense that I think you're alluding to -- the majority belief
was that there were three possible outcomes of death -- liberation, reincarnation, or oblivion. Gnostics who had obtained the required knowledge were
liberated, Gnostics who had not, and normal, "run of the mill" Christians, would reincarnate over and over until they did obtain it, and the unwashed
masses were destined for obliteration.

Sounds like the Christian Hell to me.... Isn't that how it works according to Christianity... Believe in Jesus or burn for eternity? Or even "the
second death" which is the death of the spirit... or Obliteration?

Sorry, I'm getting confused here -- are you talking about Marcion? Or the Gnostic Christians? They were two separate things -- and though they
had some beliefs in common, particularly as regards the Jewish issue, Marcion would not have agreed with much that Valentinus and later Gnostic
Christians came up with.

In that quote i was talking about Marcion... Lots of his ideas were used in Gnostic writing apparently, though they were from reconstructions from
refutations from early "christian" writers... not from his actual writing.

Actually, they were pretty close to being contemporaneous, so probably not. The similar focus on refutation of Judaism had different reasons behind
each of them, so while the Gnostics were no doubt aware of Marcion, it is unlikely that they borrowed from him, and we know that they did not use his
canon.

Perhaps you might cite some passages that reject the resurrection?

Here's an excerpt from an essay that's on gnosis.org, on the Valentinian view:

On the third day after his human body died, the Savior sent forth a ray of power which destroyed death, and "he raised the mortal body after he
scattered the sufferings (i.e. the physical and carnal natures)" (Excerpts of Theodotus 61:6). This body which he raised is not the material body,
"for what is flesh and blood cannot share in God's kingdom" (1 Corinthians 15:50). Instead, it was a body of animate essence specially transformed
so that it could be seen and felt (cf. Excerpts of Theodotus 59:4, Against Heresies 1:6:1, 1:7:1).

The risen Savior only took up those elements he wished to save, that is, the animate soul and the spiritual seed ( Against Heresies1:6:1). It is this
animate and spiritual body of Christ which is consubstantial with the Church (Excerpts of Theodotus 42:3, 58:1, cf. Ephesians 4:15-16). Theodotus puts
it in these words, "The visible part of Jesus was Wisdom (Sophia) and the Church of the superior seed which he put on through the body" (Excerpts of
Theodotus 26:1). (Source)

As I said, they didn't reject it, so much as they had to explain it as something other than a return to a material form. Here's another example,
from the Gospel of Phillip:

Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error. If they do not first receive the resurrection while they live, when they die they
will receive nothing. So also when speaking about baptism they say, "Baptism is a great thing," because if people receive it they will live.

The "resurrection" is a spiritual thing that happens when you are alive, not something that happens after death.

Sounds like the Christian Hell to me.... Isn't that how it works according to Christianity... Believe in Jesus or burn for
eternity?

No, you wouldn't "burn for eternity", because the next time that you incarnated, you might find the Gnosis, but you'd have to continually keep
accepting Christ, at least, or that was your last go-around.

Actually, they were pretty close to being contemporaneous, so probably not. The similar focus on refutation of Judaism had different reasons
behind each of them, so while the Gnostics were no doubt aware of Marcion, it is unlikely that they borrowed from him, and we know that they did not
use his canon.

Perhaps they didn't borrow directly from him, but he got his ideas from some where... and he must have had some influence on people if they needed
to destroy all of his work. And what would be the point of these "reconstructions" of his work if gnostics didn't see the value in what he
said?

What is known about him? He was rich... a ship owner... a large contributor to the church...

Loved Pauls work

In any case this discussion isn't about Marcion

Here's an excerpt from an essay that's on gnosis.org, on the Valentinian view:

That doesn't seem like a rejection of "resurrection" to me... more like a different view of it...

As I said, they didn't reject it, so much as they had to explain it as something other than a return to a material form. Here's another
example, from the Gospel of Phillip:

Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error. If they do not first receive the resurrection while they live, when they die they will
receive nothing. So also when speaking about baptism they say, "Baptism is a great thing," because if people receive it they will live.

So when you were "saved" as a christian... isn't that a resurrection of the spirit?

Did he not say "the spirit will come to you"?

OR

how about this?

25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

The "resurrection" is a spiritual thing that happens when you are alive, not something that happens after death.

Isn't that what that quote said?

No, you wouldn't "burn for eternity", because the next time that you incarnated, you might find the Gnosis, but you'd have to continually
keep accepting Christ, at least, or that was your last go-around.

Technically, those who have accepted "Christ" are always his.... no?

25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

IF they have eternal life, and never perish... and "no man can pluck them from his fathers hand"... the next time around they will still recognise
the voice of the "shepard"

Yes he did.... you can lie to yourself all you want. We both KNOW he did and if you do not know that fact then you do not know other facts he indeed
taught.

Check your Bible again. Im sure its the same I read.

I think you might have to cite some passages to help your case hun...

I actually believe he taught it as well, but its not found specifically in the gospels... It was likely something that was removed from the texts, or
omitted completely... of course this is speculation, and my personal opinion..

Im going to have to agree with these two on this one... As it stands the words of Jesus do not teach reincarnation specifically... Though there are
hints of it...

I also believe its possible that the church hid certain things from his teachings, or even removed some parts of the text that didn't agree with what
they wanted taught...

In any case there is no doubt that he taught life after death, which leaves open the possibility of reincarnation as well as rebirth and
resurrection.

Regardless there is nothing in the bible that states "reincarnation doesn't exist" either...

And the first person who tries to use Hebrews 9 as evidence gets a slap...

Its clear to me and MANY others he taught rebirth/reincarnation and explains to his disciples what he meant when he said who was who as they were
often confused.

If Jesus were alive today and preached all of his good news there is no doubt in my mind people who call them self Christian today would deny him.

If people "got it" from the Bible and understood what he taught there would be more understanding of the Bible and ancient texts.

Many people would then agree how the word of God can come from such a text.

Either way.. to each his own but I am not going to have anyone tell me he didn't teach that we all come to Earth many times to reach atonement.

Its not a once in a lifetime chance for heaven or hell.

Early Christianity indeed taught it. Origen taught it. Why did they teach this in the very beginning and why is it not taught today? Its political and
controlling. I say, they have done a good job doing so.

Josephus even speaks of "good souls reviving and living again". Josephus is important for many reasons in my view and one doesn't have to be a
rocket scientist to figure out why it didn't make the cut.

Funny how nothing that obvious made the cut. Matthew, Mark and John speak of reincarnation as well. I guess reaping what you sow is just within one
life time on Earth with all of eternity left to reap what we sow, huh? lol

Ebionites taught that the Holy Spirit had come as Adam and later reincarnated as Jesus. Others were the Elkasaites and Nazarites. The Clementine
Homilies , an early Christian document, also taught many incarnations of Jesus. The Samaritans did as well. There was also the Gnostics and Essenes
who believed in it. I could go on and on .... but you see I am not pulling something out of thin air.

I know this issue has been confronted and many scriptures with it. How people still deny it is way beyond my understanding.

In regards to the Jews...

Do any of you know that there are many African Americans who believe THEY are the true Jews?

Jews even argue who the true Jews are.

As far as the true Jews and whether or not Mary was a Jew is highly debatable!!! I am one of many who will stand up and say they were not Jews. Sorry.
Man can be tricky and I know this. I don't like it, but one has to seek God in order to find out the truth. We have been played as far as I am
concerned... big time and I doubt God looks highly on the secret keepers. But the truth always comes out, this I know.

Yes he did.... you can lie to yourself all you want. We both KNOW he did and if you do not know that fact then you do not know other facts he indeed
taught.

Check your Bible again. Im sure its the same I read.

I think you might have to cite some passages to help your case hun...

I actually believe he taught it as well, but its not found specifically in the gospels... It was likely something that was removed from the texts, or
omitted completely... of course this is speculation, and my personal opinion..

"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun ... Whatever is has already been, and what
will be has been before; and God will call the past to account." (Eccl 1:9;3:15)

From time to time in Jewish history, there was an insistent belief that their prophets were reborn. Evidence of this can be found in the Hebrew
scriptures, the Dead Sea Scrolls, early Christian and Jewish Gnostic writings, the New Testament, and the writings of ancient historians. At the time
of Jesus, there were many competing ideas concerning death and what happens afterward. Greek and Neo-Platonic concepts of reincarnation, Persian
resurrection, ancient Hebrew ideas of "She'ol", beliefs in no afterlife at all, and religions and philosophies from other sources, all existed
among the Jews in those days. The origin of resurrection in Jewish and Christian doctrine began with the Babylonian exile, a period when the Jews in
Israel were conquered and taken captive to Babylon. Later, in 539 B.C., Babylon itself was conquered by the Persians who installed a Zoroastrian
theocracy throughout the defeated Babylonian empire. It was then that the Zoroastrian religion and its doctrine of resurrection began exerting a
tremendous influence on Judaism. Christianity, in turn, inherited the concept of resurrection from Judaism. In fact, it was the Zoroastrian religion
that was the source of resurrection, the belief in angels (including that of Satan), the afterlife, rewards and punishments, the soul's immortality,
and the Last Judgment. Before the influence of Zoroastrianism on Judaism, the Jews believed in "Sheol," a pit beneath the Earth where people went
after death. As time went on, many Jews greatly resisted the imposition of Zoroastrianism masquerading as Judaism. Whatever the Persian governors and
priests were doing in Jerusalem in the name of Judaism, caused a great schism. A sect of purists, called the Sadducees, which was made up of over 97%
of the population, rose up. They rejected all Persian concepts such as resurrection, angels, or spirits. The Sadducees did not emphasize life after
death at all according to the New Testament (Matt. 22:23). The first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote that the Pharisees, the Jewish
sect that founded rabbinic Judaism to which Paul once belonged, believed in reincarnation. He writes that the Pharisees believed the souls of evil men
are punished after death. The souls of good men are "removed into other bodies" and they will "have power to revive and live again." Josephus
records that the Essenes of the Dead Sea Scrolls lived "the same kind of life" as the followers of Pythagoras, the Greek philosopher who taught
reincarnation. According to Josephus, the Essenes believed that the soul is both immortal and preexistent, necessary for tenets for belief in
reincarnation.

Reincarnation has been a belief for thousands of years for orthodox Jews. The Zohar is a book of great authority among Kabbalistic Jews. It states
the following: "All souls are subject to revolutions.""Men do not know the way they have been judged in all time." (Zohar II, 199b) That is, in
their "revolutions" they lose all memory of the actions that led to their being judged. Another Kabbalistic book, the Kether Malkuth states: "If
she, the soul, be pure, then she shall obtain favor ... but if she has been defiled, then she shall wander for a time in pain and despair... until the
days of her purification." (Kether Malkuth) How can the soul be defiled before birth? Where does the soul wander if not on this or some other world
until the days of her purification? The rabbis explained this verse to mean that the defiled soul wanders down from paradise through many births until
the soul regained its purity.

"When you see a likeness of yourself, you are happy. But when you see your images that came into being before you, and that neither die nor become
visible, how much you will be able to tolerate!" - Jesus Christ, Gospel of Thomas

I'm not sure either one of us knows what we're arguing about any more. I know I don't.

My points, as regards resurrection and the Gnostic Christians:

1) The four Gospels and some of the Epistles that are now in the New Testament spoke clearly of a physical resurrection of Christ, the Hebrew Bible
speaks of physical resurrection, and these texts were in widespread use in the Christian community
2) At least the Gospels were also in use within the Gnostic Christian community
3) The dualistic Gnostics had to explain why Jesus, their Bringer of Gnosis, would have been returned to his material form
4) Their majority response was to adopt Docetism, to claim that Jesus had never been material, and that "resurrection" referred to something
else entirely.

However, this is contrary to Orthodox Christianity and both the Old and New Testaments, which all agree that resurrection refers to the restoration of
the soul in a physical body.

I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness - the mystery that has been kept hidden for
ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints. To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery,
which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. (Col. 1:25-27)

Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed. (1 Cor. 15:51)

For all the prophets and the law have prophesied until John. And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who was to come. (Matt. 11:13-14)

And the disciples asked him, saying, "Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?"

But he answered them and said, "Elijah indeed is to come and will restore all things. But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not
know him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also shall the Son of Man suffer at their hand."

Then the disciples understood that he had spoken of John the Baptist." (Matt. 17:10-13)

Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. (Malachi 4:5)

1.The Old Testament prophesied that Elijah himself - not someone like him or someone in the same ministry as him - but Elijah himself would return
before the advent of the Messiah.

2.Jesus declared John to be Elijah when he stated that Elijah has come.

After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before
them. His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them. And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were
talking with Jesus ...

As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus gave them orders not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead.

They kept the matter to themselves, discussing what "rising from the dead" meant.

And they asked him, "Why do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?

"Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah does come first, and restores all things."

"Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected?"

"But I tell you, Elijah has come, and they have done to him everything they wished, just as it is written about him." (Mark 9:9-13)

And he [John the Baptist] will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah. (Luke 1:17)

Now Herod the tetrarch heard about all that was going on. And he was perplexed, because some were saying that John had been raised from the dead,
others that Elijah had appeared, and still others that one of the prophets of long ago had come back to life. (Luke 9:7-8)

There are many other passages...... There are many books written on the secrets and why they have been kept from us.

Gotta love this age being informative. Information with a click these days.

Originally posted by MamaJ
"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun ... Whatever is has already been, and what
will be has been before; and God will call the past to account." (Eccl 1:9;3:15)

Usually, it helps to read things in context, rather than just grabbing handy lines here and there that seem to fit your needs.

The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.
“Vanity of vanities,” says the Preacher,
“Vanity of vanities! All is vanity.”
What advantage does man have in all his work
Which he does under the sun?
A generation goes and a generation comes,
But the earth remains forever.
Also, the sun rises and the sun sets;
And hastening to its place it rises there again.
Blowing toward the south,
Then turning toward the north,
The wind continues swirling along;
And on its circular courses the wind returns.
All the rivers flow into the sea,
Yet the sea is not full.
To the place where the rivers flow,
There they flow again.
All things are wearisome;
Man is not able to tell it.
The eye is not satisfied with seeing,
Nor is the ear filled with hearing.
That which has been is that which will be,
And that which has been done is that which will be done.
So there is nothing new under the sun.
Is there anything of which one might say,
“See this, it is new”?
Already it has existed for ages
Which were before us.
There is no remembrance of earlier things;
And also of the later things which will occur,
There will be for them no remembrance
Among those who will come later still. (Ecclesiastes 1:1-11 NIV)

In context, is this about reincarnation? Hardly -- it's about the way the natural world goes on, irrespective of us.

Reincarnation has been a belief for thousands of years for orthodox Jews. The Zohar is a book of great authority among Kabbalistic Jews.

"When you see a likeness of yourself, you are happy. But when you see your images that came into being before you, and that neither die nor
become visible, how much you will be able to tolerate!" - Jesus Christ, Gospel of Thomas

First of all, Jesus is highly unlikely to have said this, and secondly, it is clearly referring to the spiritual side of our being, as opposed to our
material being, and that once we sort out that the two are separate, and the spirit is immortal, we'll have an easier go of things.

Keep believing what you may, I just hope in the end you know enough facts of History to KNOW Jesus when or if he comes back in the material.

"First of all, Jesus is highly unlikely to have said this, and secondly, it is clearly referring to the spiritual side of our being, as opposed to our
material being, and that once we sort out that the two are separate, and the spirit is immortal, we'll have an easier go of things."

Why is highly unlikely? Why? Because you say so and don't feel comfy with Gods Word?

Yes, the spiritual is what incarnates IN the body. Have to have a body don't we??

Our spirit is immortal but the body isn't. The body is used as a vessel to get jobs done here on Earth.

Know who you truly are and KNOW you have lived many times before.

If you do not want to KNOW this fact.... so be it. Dont sit here and say its not found in the Bible. Its found there, Dead Sea Scrolls and many other
earlier pre-jew texts along with jewish texts.

Getting to know Jews and their history will teach a "christian" a lot.. We have been spoon fed and most are not even full yet. I don't like it, but
its true.

Don't believe me.... research like I have and God will show you the truth!!

ETA: Your little smart remark followed by a quote. I saw this at the bottom and didn't even read it. "Ecclesiastes 1:1-11 NIV)"

Why would you even read a NIV Bible? HA! More spoon feeding!

I get that if reincarnation is true for you... it would make you rethink things in the Bible... so I will leave it be. I have given you enough to at
least make you remember who you really are. You are more than one body, one life, and a spirit that may get caught up in a furnace for all of
eternity. This stuff is ridiculous to even debate. It should be common sense. Not trying to offend... but this is ridiculous.

What's to research? I can see that you took that quote completely out of context, I know that Kabbalah is Jewish mysticism, it isn't mainstream
Judaism, and I've been studying Gnostic texts for a long, long time.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.